Back
2022 Supreme(Ori) 373
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.
Santanu Kumar Budhia – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Ors. – Respondent
W.P.(C) No.19303 of 2022
Decided on : 11-08-2022
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Suryakanta Dwibedi, Adv. Mr. S.P. Swain, Adv. -versus-
For the Respondent: Mr. Ashok Ku. Parija, Mr. Arnab Behera, Adv.
Inclusion in the merit/select list does not confer a right to appointment, and the authority has the discretion to decide the cut-off mark in CBT for shortlisting.
Headnote:
SEBC Category - Initial Appointee Teachers - Advertisement dated 23.12.2021, Paragraph 9 - The matter discussed the method of selection for the post of initial appointee teachers, the eligibility conditions, and the provisional select list. The court highlighted the importance of fulfilling various eligibility conditions for shortlisting and the authority's right to decide the cut-off mark in CBT for shortlisting. The judgment also emphasized that inclusion in the merit/select list does not confer a right to appointment.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the exclusion of his name from the provisional selection list for the post of initial appointee teachers (TGT Arts) in the SEBC category, despite qualifying the Computer Based Test (CBT) and being enlisted in the draft merit list.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's claim of unfair exclusion was untenable as the selection process involved various eligibility conditions and the authority's discretion to decide the cut-off mark in CBT for shortlisting. The court emphasized that inclusion in the merit/select list does not confer a right to appointment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's exclusion from the provisional selection list, the authority's discretion in the selection process, and the interpretation of the eligibility conditions for shortlisting.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment established that inclusion in the merit/select list does not confer a right to appointment and emphasized the authority's discretion in deciding the cut-off mark in CBT for shortlisting.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Writ Petition, stating that the appearance of a candidate's name in the merit/select list does not confer any right to be selected, and unsuccessful candidates cannot claim hostile discrimination. The judgment highlighted the limited scope of judicial review in such matters.
JUDGMENT :
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.
3. The present petition has been filed challenging the notice dated 22.07.2022 and the consequential publication of provisional selection list of SEBC category for the post of initial appointee teachers (TGT Arts). The petition calls into question the action of opposite parties in excluding the name of the petitioner from the provisional selection list even though he had qualified the Computer Based Test (CBT) and was enlisted in the draft merit list.
4. Shorn of unnecessary details, the substratum of matter presented before this court remain that pursuant to advertisement dated 23.12.2021, the Opposite Party No.2 invited online applications for recruitment of appointee teachers in Govt. Secondary schools. The selection for the above-mentioned posts was to be made through Computer Based Test (CBT) in selected test centers in Odisha.
5. The averments made in the writ petition are that the petitioner applied for the post of TGT Arts and appeared in the CBT as per the scheduled date. On the basis of his performance in the CBT, the name of the petitioner was enlisted in the draft merit list dated 19.05.2022.
6. The certificates and documents of the petitioner were verified at the district level after publication of the draft merit list. Pursuant to Notice No. 18127 dated 22.07.2022, a provisional select list was published by the opposite parties wherein the petitioner’s name was not enlisted under the SEBC category.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the candidates enlisted in the draft merit list under the SEBC with PWD category had secured less marks in the CBT and their names were enlisted much below in the serial number as compared to the petitioner. In spite of this, their names were enlisted in the provisional select list and the petitioner’s case was not considered.
8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opposite parties with an oblique motive didn’t enlist the name of the petitioner in the provisional select list even though his certificates and documents were verified by concerned authorities. Accordingly, the opposite parties have not acted in consonance with law and procedure while discharging public duties and hence, the provisional select list is not sustainable in the eyes of law and liable to be quashed/modified.
9. Paragraph No.9 of the said advertisement dated 23.12.2021 which provide for method of selection to the post of initial appointee teachers read as follows:
“9. Method of Selection: a) The selection will be made on the basis of result of Computer Based Competitive Examination. The Scheme and Syllabus of Examination is placed at Appendix-C. In case the examination for any posts is held in multiple batches normalization of considered.
b) Candidates will be selected on the basis of their performance In Computer Based Test (CBT). The appropriate Committee constituted by Government reserves the right to decide the cut off mark in CBT for short listing. Provided that in case normalization of score is done, the normalized score obtained by the candidate shall be taken in to consideration. c) Rank list of the candidates qualifying in the Computer Based Test shall be prepared taking in order of marks secured or normalized score secured by the candidates in the examination. In case of two or more candidates secure the same marks/ score the candidate older in age will be placed above in the rank. d) Candidates shortlisted from the Rank list shall be called to get their documents verified at District level. The State Selection Committee shall have the right to decide the criteria for short listing. The district mentioned in the permanent address in the application form shall be taken as the district in which the documents of a candidate are to be verified. Candidates are required to mention the permanent address with
